# C_2020087EN.01001301.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/13

---

Appeal brought on 23 December 2019 by Carmen Liaño Reig against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 October 2019 in Case T-557/17, Liaño Reig v SRB

(Case C-947/19 P)

(2020/C 87/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Carmen Liaño Reig (represented by: F. López Antón, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| (i) | allow the present appeal and set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2019, Liaño Reig v SRB (T-557/17, not published, EU:T:2019:771) dismissing the appellant’s action before the General Court as inadmisible and ordering the appellant to pay the costs of the SRB, set out in paragraphs 1 and 3, respectively, of the operative part of the order, and |
| --- | --- |

(i)

allow the present appeal and set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2019, Liaño Reig v SRB (T-557/17, not published, EU:T:2019:771) dismissing the appellant’s action before the General Court as inadmisible and ordering the appellant to pay the costs of the SRB, set out in paragraphs 1 and 3, respectively, of the operative part of the order, and

| (ii) | under the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union give final judgment in the case brought by the appellant before the General Court, allowing all the claims set out in the application before the General Court, if it considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, or, if not, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, reserving the decision on costs. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

under the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union give final judgment in the case brought by the appellant before the General Court, allowing all the claims set out in the application before the General Court, if it considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, or, if not, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, reserving the decision on costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

A.   As regards the plea that the action is inadmissible based on the General Court’s conclusion that the partial annulment of the resolution decision requested by the appellant cannot be separated from the other elements of the resolution scheme without altering the substance of the resolution decision

Plea 1: the argument put forward in paragraph 40 of the order under appeal is vitiated by a failure to state reasons.

Plea 2: the assertion in paragraph 40 of the order under appeal is incorrect and unfounded as it does not take into account data concerning the amounts of the Tier 2 instruments referred to in Article 6(1)(d) of the resolution decision which were converted into shares in Banco Popular.

Plea 3: the order under appeal does not take into account the Court’s case-law in accordance with which the alteration of the substance of an act must be assessed on the basis of an objective criterion.

Plea 4: paragraphs 30 and 35 of the order under appeal are vitiated by a failure to state reasons concerning the alleged need to convert all the Tier 2 instruments as a necessary prerequisite for the implementation of the resolution tool consisting of the sale of the business.

Plea 5: the order under appeal is wrong in law as it is based on the bid presented by Banco Santander, which does not form part of the documents on the file.

Plea 6: the General Court erred in law by not taking into account, in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the order under appeal, the appellant’s contentions concerning the effectiveness of valuation 2 and by not assessing the documents on the file which substantiate those contentions.

Plea 7: paragraph 42 of the order under appeal contains an error of law on account of a failure to state reasons.

Plea 8: the order under appeal does not take into account the appellant’s claim concerning the application of Article 21(1)(c) of Regulation No 806/2014 concerning compliance with the condition of severability and, therefore, the reasoning in paragraph 42 of the order under appeal is incorrect.

B)   As regards the plea that the action is inadmissible on the basis that the order under appeal held that the partial annulment of the resolution decision requested by the appellant is contrary to the principle of equal treatment of creditors of the same class

Plea 9: paragraphs 48 and 51 of the order under appeal contain an error of assessment in respect of the appellant’s claims.

Plea 10: the General Court erred in law, in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the order under appeal, by wrongly applying, to the BPEF bonds, the general resolution principle provided for in Article 15(1)(f) of Regulation No 806/2014.

Plea 11: the General Court erred in law, in paragraphs 44 to 46 and 51 of the order under appeal, by wrongly applying the principle of equal treatment in respect of the BPEF bonds and, in addition, set out an incorrect statement of reasons.

C)   As regards the inadmissibility of the application for annulment of valuations 1 and 2

Plea 12: the General Court (paragraph 55 of the order under appeal) substantiates the inadmissibility of the application for annulment of valuations 1 and 2 on the sole basis of the inadmissibility of the application for partial annulment of the resolution decision brought by the appellant.

D)   As regards the inadmissibility of the application for compensation

Plea 13: the General Court (paragraph 66 of the order under appeal) gives as the only reason for the inadmissibility of the appellant’s application for compensation, the inadmissibility of the application for annulment concerning the conversion of the BPEF bonds into shares in Banco Popular.

---